Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ESPN's Play To Make ISPs Pay

Posted by kdawson on from the other-side-of-anti-net-neutrality dept.

lochii sends us to Wired for reporting on ESPN's game plan to extract royalties from all ISPs, for a "license" for their users to view ESPN video. Currently, according to ESPN, 40% of US Internet users connect through ISPs who are paying the (undisclosed) fees; others are unable to view the content. Quoting: "This is a reversal of the model pushed by some major broadband companies that would like to charge content companies for the right to use their pipes. If other full-length video providers like Hulu and HBO get in on the act, the time could be approaching when you'll choose your Internet service based on what selection of content it offers. Eventually, popular non-video websites might follow suit. Imagine a future water cooler conversation over broadband choice: 'I went with Comcast 'cause they get Yahoo.'"

25 of 355 comments (clear)

  1. I thought we already had this option... by Jason+daHaus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and it was called AOL.

    1. Re:I thought we already had this option... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      *SIGH*

      You know, the internet was SO much more fun before companies and money found a way to use it.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:I thought we already had this option... by FredFredrickson · · Score: 4, Informative
      I just tested to see if my internet provider gives me access. This is the message I got:

      How To Get ESPN360.com Close ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider. ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases. Congratulations! Your internet service provider carries ESPN360.com. Just click on the WATCH NOW link or any event to start watching ESPN360.com.

      (Emphasis: Mine)
      This is one of the most chilling messages I've ever gotten on the internet. I hope never to read a message like that again. Your provider carries "google"??

      Obivously ,it's leading to this: The real money maker:

      We're sorry, your provider does not carry the XXX porn package, you cannot access any of these sites.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    3. Re:I thought we already had this option... by DrLang21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just sent an e-mail to my ISPs customer service center thanking them for NOT being affiliated with ESPN360.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    4. Re:I thought we already had this option... by DrLang21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is that terrible because it's an underhanded way to force everyone on the internet to pay them. This is fundamentally no different than the fee that the RIAA wants put into place on all internet users. They want you to pay whether you want the service or now (guilty or not). And they want you to think that you're getting it for free.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    5. Re:I thought we already had this option... by M1rth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't "capitalism."

      "Capitalism" would be letting individual people pay for an ESPN360 account, and then sign in to view the videos.

      THIS is trying to get a "critical mass" such that every ISP pays some fee to ESPN for the "service" whether the individual person actually wants (or even has heard of) ESPN360 or not.

      ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider.

      Complete lies and bullshit. The user - whether they wanted to or not - was charged for the ESPN360 access when they paid their ISP. You think the ISP would do it "for free"??? If so, you're delusional.

      Just think - if this model catches on, you'll be paying $200/month or more to your ISP for all the "free, affiliated content" you get. Of course, your only other option will be dialup, because in most cities one ISP has a local-government-granted monopoly AND we don't yet have equal-access provisions like we do for the phone lines.

      Think about it - where you live right now, do you have a choice of ISP's? I either get Comcrap where I live, dialup, or nothing at all.

      --
      If you can read this sig, congratulations, you have your glasses on!
    6. Re:I thought we already had this option... by beckerist · · Score: 4, Informative

      The banner is bright red:

      ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider. ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases.

      Your current computer network falls outside of these categories. Here's how you can get access to ESPN360.com.

      1. Switch to an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider or to contact your internet service provider and request ESPN360.com. Click here to enter your ZIP code and find out which providers in your area carry offer ESPN360.com

      2. For Verizon Customers Only: Sign-in using remote access if you already get ESPN360.com

    7. Re:I thought we already had this option... by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      EXACTLY. For those unfamiliar, let me explain why:

      AOL = What a non-neutral internet looks like. And it was why AOL died. AOL would partner with different companies, and those companies would provide content to AOL customers. Eventually, AOL couldn't keep up with the vast amount of content on the open internet, so they lost out. Prodigy and CompuServe used the same exact model.

      It kinda made sense back before there were standard protocols like HTTP for providing content, and before it was possible to bill users for the content they viewed.

      This is the worst-case scenario for a non-neutral internet. Every ISP that "partnered" with ESPN needs to cancel their deals, so that ESPN is forced to play the game the same way as everyone else.

    8. Re:I thought we already had this option... by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yea, fuck that. if they want a pay site, they should just charge for membership. otherwise, set up your own private network and get off the public internet.

      i shouldn't have to worry about whether someone else's ISP "carries" a particular website when linking to a public webpage. this not only fragments the web, but it's an underhanded way of charging broadband subscribers extra for specific web content without their permission or knowledge. i don't have any interest in ESPN content, so why should i have to foot the bill for a subscription to a site that i will never visit?

    9. Re:I thought we already had this option... by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This one just happens to be subscribing large groups by having their ISP pay.

      It's a little more serious than that. This is an attempt by content providers to push the cable subscription model on to the internet where ISP's essentially become the cable operators and subscribe to sites before users can access them. Only I don't think it's going to work. Content providers would be cutting their own throats...not that I would mind seeing that happen to some of them. Their traffic would crater and it would open up opportunities for smaller providers to eat into their market.

      This is ESPN trying to carve out a lofty niche for themselves and effectively tax everyone on an ISP's system whether they use the site or not. It's a lot cheaper to manage payment from one source than trying to sell to the world at large and the overhead that goes with it. So it's definitely good for ESPN. You...not so much.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    10. Re:I thought we already had this option... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Capitalism" would be letting individual people pay for an ESPN360 account, and then sign in to view the videos.

      This has nothing to do with whether or not it is capitalism -- though you are mistaken to think it is not.

      The problem is what role the ISPs play -- are they a delivery service, or are they a retailer of services? If they are a delivery service, are they content-agnostic [net-neutrality], or not?

      According to how ESPN360 works, ISPs function as a retailer of services, with ESPN as the packager/wholesaler.

      Just think - if this model catches on, you'll be paying $200/month or more to your ISP for all the "free, affiliated content" you get. Of course, your only other option will be dialup, because in most cities one ISP has a local-government-granted monopoly AND we don't yet have equal-access provisions like we do for the phone lines.

      If this model catches on (and it will, unless we get better support for net neutrality), what we will see is a variety of tiered packages from our large ISPs, just like what we have for cable TV. Basic, Family, Premium, Ultimate Sports, etc, at different prices. Plus some ISPs will offer an a la carte model -- $50 for basic service, plus $X for each source, $2X for some sources.

      This does a couple things that the content providers (like ESPN360) really like -- it gets them out of the subscription handling/fulfillment aspect (which is expensive). It shifts some of the marketing burden onto the ISPs (who, if competing on content available, will tout the 'stations' they carry, and promote those stations).

      This does a couple things the ISPs like. It allows the big ISPs to better dominate the smaller ISPs via economy of scale. It allows them to bill differently -- making bandwidth less important to the average subscriber. Joe Sixpack is going to care a whole lot more about what content is available than his bandwidth. Expect even more confusing pricing structures.

      For the end-consumer, though, this stinks. All around. But since we are slaves to our content, it doesn't matter -- we'll pay and pay and pay, because we refuse to do without, and there are few viable options.

      The solution to this is net neutrality. Let the ISPs carry packets, and let the consumer make agreements with the content wholesalers directly -- this is how you think it should work, and I agree.

      The problem is that without legislated net neutrality, it's not going to happen. The consumer is severely outweighed by the content wholesalers/producers and the ISPs, and we need to use our legislative system in order to have our concerns make any impact on how internet service is going to be handled in the future.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    11. Re:I thought we already had this option... by Wildclaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't confuse capitalism and the free market. Free markets can exist even under some types of communism. On the other hand, capitalism doesn't nescessarily mean free market. A free market is a place where sellers and buyers can get together and trade a bunch of products based on supply and demand, allowing for the most efficent allocation of resources availible to man. Capitalism on the other hand is just an economic state where private interests controls and decide what is done with the capital, while the goverment enforces the property laws that is needed for that.

      What the top tier ISPs are doing is completly capitalistic. They are private entitites owning the capital and are using it to buy (strongarm) regulations that favor themselves. Am I being unfair to capitalism? Many would probably say that what I am talking about isn't capitalism and that US in many part isn't very capitalistic, but I have to disagree. Such complains are no more valid than communists claiming that soviet wasn't a communist state. There is theory and there is reality. Reality has shown time and time again what happens when capitalistic methodology is introduced and let run wild. Just like it has shown what happens when you let a communist methodology run wild. Neither are wanted results. Too much power in the hands of too few is a dangerous thing. It doesn't matter if it is private or goverment hands, because in the end they just become intertwined.

  2. Error! by Tei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thats not how Internet work, and how we want internet to work.
    Go fuck yourselves

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  3. Commuters and travelers by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My business requires that I travel. On a slow week I use two different ISPs. In a busy week, a dozen. And we're not even talking about vacations yet.
    If your site isn't available everywhere, I'll find something else. Nobody's content is that valuable.

    Although, if I'm wrong and this business model does take off, the back side is even uglier: there will be ISPs that offer their services based on what you can't get. It will cater to employers, libraries, schools and other places that don't want people accessing certain sites.

  4. Net Neutrality by FredFredrickson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Freakin idiots. ESPN, a content producer, is using their weight to ruin the internet.

    This is so bass ackwards to the way the internet works and will continue to work. My only hope is that this idea fails with gusto, so that it can be used as a warning shot to all others who think they can "OWN" the internet like they owned the captive audiences on cable TV.

    TV is a dead business model, and they need to get on the bandwagon. Ever since I got Hulu on my Xbox, I've discovered how much I just don't care, and don't need, cable/satelite tv.

    Net neutrality needs to specifically outlaw this sort of thing.

    Locking down information on the net is exactly how to ruin the net.

    All that being said, we'll just use a proxy and move on.

    --
    Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    1. Re:Net Neutrality by JCSoRocks · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Internet has officially been ruined. I thought AOL was bad. This is ridiculous. Now if only their was a way for us to senD Over a meSsage about how we feel...

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    2. Re:Net Neutrality by UnTdWrLdGv · · Score: 5, Interesting

      TV is a dead business model, and they need to get on the bandwagon. Ever since I got Hulu on my Xbox, I've discovered how much I just don't care, and don't need, cable/satelite tv.

      Does Hulu offer 5.1 Dolby Digital and 720p or better resolution with ZERO commercials and live sports? Once I can get that quickly and easily on the net without having to wait for someone to upload a torrent and then wait again for it to download AND live sports, I will be done with cable/satellite. But until that day I will bite the bullet and over pay because of the quality and convenience. I hate my cable company, but as a sports fan and an A/V nut, I'm stuck with them for now.

  5. Its bad enough on Cable... by DarkFencer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its bad enough that I have to pay the freaking ESPN Tax added onto my cable bill when I don't even want it. Many I know are fleeing cable so they DO NOT have to pay for things like this.

  6. Do I pay twice by Ummon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So what if my ISP is my cable provider (effing Comcast)? Am I effectively paying twice for this content?

  7. This is just for ESPN 360 by MojoRilla · · Score: 4, Informative

    Big deal. This isn't for video clips available from ESPN.com, it is for their former premium product ESPN 360, which doesn't even show ESPN TV (due, I'm sure, to cable contracts), but various minor live sporting events (minor college football and basketball, MLS, NASCAR Nationwide series). The only difference between this and other products that have been selling versions to ISPs for years is that there is no pay version, you must get this through your ISP.

  8. Bad idea on two sides - both for me and ESPN by name_already_taken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This raises two issues for me:

    1. I am not a sports fan, and I expect ESPN to issue me a credit if my ISP is paying them for a service I do not use and do not want. Now that I think about it, if I could get a discount for having their channels removed from my TV service that would be great, too.

    2. ESPN has just eliminated a huge swath of the Internet-using public from viewing their content. If it's a subscription service, sell it as such. The way they are handling this seems like it would be bad for their business.

    If I was a sports fan, and I couldn't view ESPN's content because of my choice of ISP, I think I'd just look elsewhere (ie. another sports news site), rather than go through the hassle of changing ISPs.

    --
    Putting moderation advice in your .sig lowers your karma!
  9. Who wants net neutrality NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Major ISPS: you content providers are making money off our pipes. We are going to charge you for that!

    Content Providers: Net Neutrality!!!! Er, wait. Our content is valuable, and you are using your pipes to distribute it. We are going to charge YOU for that!

    Major ISPS: Er....Net Neutrality!!!!!

    1. Re:Who wants net neutrality NOW? by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This actually makes an interesting point. Could this very situation finally convince ISPs that net neutrality is a good idea?

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    2. Re:Who wants net neutrality NOW? by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, it'd probably convince them to buy companies that can do shit like ESPN is doing and screw over their competition.

      Who says Hulu has to make an offer? If Verizon offers them millions of dollars to only work exclusively with Verizon, who's to say Hulu wouldn't take it?

      s/Hulu/$ANY_MAJOR_CONTENT_PROVIDER

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
  10. Call Them by fwr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you don't like this, call them at 888-549-3776, and go on their web site and write a complaint and ask for a refund if you ISP is paying them, and charging you, and you don't want their "service." If you really want to make a difference, pick a random day of the week and time and schedule a reminder to call them once a week on this topic. It does cost them, and they will take notice, if enough people call them enough times on a regular basis. A short-lived complaint blast that goes away after a day, or week, will either not be noticed, or ignored because it was a one-time event. You can also contact your congress critter and tell them you would like them to investigate such practices and put a stop to it. But again, it would be better if you regularly brought this to their attention rather than a one-time event.